2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness of your opinion and repented.
4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time.
5. Be selective in your reading and comprehension. Pay attention to no more than one sentence per post. Where possible, avoid selecting a key sentence in the poster's argument.
6. Avoid reading posts in context. Pay no attention to any previous posts by the same person.
7. Ignore rule 6 for the purposes of pointing out an apparent inconsistency, but never ignore rule 5.
8. Be pedantic, especially when invoking rule 7.
9. Use insults on a regular basis. Begin by insulting opinions contrary to yours at a general level, then move on to insulting opinions of individuals. At a later stage, insult the intelligence of anyone who has persisted in posting.
10. If things really get going, turn people's names into something vaguely insulting. If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
Originally posted by orfeo 1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness ...[text shortened]... . If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
Correction...
95% of RHP users concise spiritual debating guide.
That sounds more realistic, anyone who wants not to agree? Is the figure to low? 😉
Originally posted by orfeo Many try to apply these rules, but I can't think of any others who have mastered all of them. Only howard has reached true enlightenment.
I have to remind you that many are trying their very best to master the master which gives me the following conclusion...
Trying to Master
+ No one stopping them
--------------------------
= Will become one of the Masters
=GETVALUE([Will become one of the Masters]+[My Opinion])
Originally posted by orfeo 1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness ...[text shortened]... . If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
Orfeo's technique can be summed up in 2 words: be wrong.
"4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time."
I assume you mean "misconstrue" here. Or did I miscontrue you?
Originally posted by howardgee Orfeo's technique can be summed up in 2 words: be wrong.
"4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time."
I assume you mean "misconstrue" here. Or did I miscontrue you?
Oh God it's like you fufilled every single point in one succinct post.
Rules 2, 8 and 9 at least, but a pretty poor effort. Admittedly, a couple of rules can't be invoked until the thread has developed a bit further, but I still expected more.
Deduct one point for lack of originality and imagination.
Originally posted by howardgee Orfeo's technique can be summed up in 2 words: be wrong.
"4. Where possible, miscontrue other people's meaning or intent. Given the ambiguities of language, this is achievable at least 90 per cent of the time."
I assume you mean "misconstrue" here. Or did I miscontrue you?
Originally posted by orfeo 1. Be aggressive at every opportunity.
2. Be dogmatic. Assert rather than debate. Be convinced of the rightness of your position. Ignore any hint of irony that may result.
3. Assume that everyone else is hanging upon your every word. Failure to respond to one of your brilliantly insightful points is a sign that the person has admitted the correctness ...[text shortened]... . If you struggle with this step, consult a schoolboy under the age of 14 for expert advice.
wait a sec, you misspelled "no1marauder" in the thread title.
Originally posted by orfeo I thought of that. He fails on rules 3 and 10 at least (my two personal favourites), and arguably on 5 and 6, and therefore 7.
Probably 8 as well, seeing as how he normally assaults substance and not spelling.
He's shown promise at #10 - for example, changing "chancremechanic" into "cancerousmechanic".
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem He's shown promise at #10 - for example, changing "chancremechanic" into "cancerousmechanic".
Really? Must have missed that one.
EDIT: Sorry, forgot the rules. What I should have said was that Doggs can't read, your hyphen should have been a full stop, and that seeing as how I know everything you're so obviously mistaken I don't need to acknowledge that you may have a point.
Originally posted by orfeo I thought of that. He fails on rules 3 and 10 at least (my two personal favourites), and arguably on 5 and 6, and therefore 7.
Probably 8 as well, seeing as how he normally assaults substance and not spelling.
He calls aspviper "asswiper". There's your rule 10.
howardgee's concise spiritual debating guide
08 May '06 09:10
Back to Top